Please Note: Each coloured link within the article will lead you to a related topic on a different page of this site. However while the text is part of the original article, the links are not. The author of this article may or may not agree with the views expressed on those pages, or anything else on this site..

A fundamental concept of the theory of evolution is that of gradual change from a "primitive," less complex organism into a highly structured organism over an imagined period of millions of years. How valid is this idea? Can we really verify the evidence supporting this idea? There are many animals existing today that totally defy evolution by their very existence. This chapter will give examples of some of these animals and explain the problems they pose the theory of evolution.

The logical frame of reference used in concluding that these animals could not have been the product of evolution is called an indirect proof. The way this works is to assume the opposite of what you wish to prove, proceed logically until you reach a contradiction or an impasse, then conclude that the alternative is true. In this chapter, we will use the concept of indirect proof with evolution, proceed logically until we reach an dead end, leaving creation as the only other alternative.

The realization that each animal is an interdependent, interrelated system was the greatest factor that influenced me to believe that evolution could not have occurred. To survive in a particular environment, an animal has to have features that work in that environment. For example, air breathing animals needs lungs. Flying creatures need wings. If evolution is valid, transitions from one environment to another had to have occurred. If such transitions are impossible, evolution is impossible!

Gradual evolutionary change from one species to another requires many mutations and genetic changes. But, the fossil record exhibits anything but gradual change. There is a gap between living systems and non-life, invertebrates and vertebrates, fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and mammals and man.

Dolphins and WhalesWe can demonstrate one such transition problem by using the example of dolphins and whales. These mammals bear their young alive and breathe air, yet spend their entire lifetime in the sea. Presumably, in order for dolphins and whales to have evolved, they must have originated from a land mammal that returned to the water and changed into a sea creature. But dolphins and whales have so many remarkable features upon which their survival depends that they couldn't have evolved! It would be a lot like trying to change a bus into a submarine one part at a time, all the while it is traveling at 60 miles per hour.

The following is a list of transitions evolutionists have to account for in the dolphin in its evolution from some unknown land dwelling pre-dolphin:

× The nose would have to move to the back of the head.

× Feet, claws, or tail would be exchanged for fins and flippers.

× It would have to develop a torpedo shaped body for efficient swimming in the water.

× It would have to be able to drink sea water and desalinize it.

× It's entire bone structure and metabolism would have to be rearranged.

× It would need to develop a sophisticated sonar system to search for food.

Could the dolphin acquire these features gradually one at a time over a period of millions of years? What about the transitional stages? Would they have survived with just some of these features? Why is there a total absence of transitional forms fossilized?

Consider the whale and its enormous size in comparison with the plankton it feeds upon. The whale is a nautical vacuum cleaner, with a baleen filter. While it was "developing" this feature, what did it feed upon before? For me, it takes a great stretch of the imagination to picture the evolution of dolphins and whales.

The Duckbill Platypus|The explorer who first saw a hide of the duckbill platypus thought that it was composed of the hides of several different animals sewn together as a joke. Later, when a preserved specimen was brought to him for dissection, he finally declared it outrageous, but genuine!

The more you study the duckbill platypus, the more problems you find for evolutionists. Here is a list of some of its features: 1

× It is a furbearing mammal.

× It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.

× It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive worm finding radar.

× Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.

× It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.

× The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.

× The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as different as you can get from the platypus.

Can you imagine what a pre-platypus might have looked like? Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from a variety of completely different animals.

The Koala Koalas are marsupials that spend nearly their entire lives high in eucalyptus trees. Their diet consists of eucalyptus leaves toxic to humans. They survive without drinking water or shelter, survive high temperatures by panting, and a well insulated coat protects them from the cold. [2]

One of the greatest "advances" of man according to the theory of evolution is the grasping hand with the opposable thumb. But, many apes also have a foot with an opposable great toe. Not to be outdone, the koala not only has an opposable great toe, but two opposable digits on each hand.

Now, also, the first digit of the foot lacks claws, but the second has two claws! Consider the evolutionist's argument for a claw to migrate from one toe to another over eons of time! One might imagine a double mutation, one that would delete a gene from one place and paste it elsewhere, or you could just believe that the koala was created that way. This would be like a baby born without a fingernail on the index finger, but two fingernails on the middle finger.

What about the unique pouch that opens aft? This feature is similar to that of the wombat, which is a completely different animal than the koala. What could the ancestry of the koala have been to account for these features, especially since transitional forms are missing in the fossils?

Most marsupials are confined to the isolated continent of Australia. Why then is the opossum so widespread in America? It is highly unlikely that one species of marsupial would be so highly removed from its ancestors.

This Theory Is For The Birds! Proponents of the theory of evolution would have us believe that reptiles began to grow appendages on their back as extensions of scales, and these appendages supposedly developed over periods of millions of years into wings and feathers. Then, they believe that these reptiles began to climb trees and attempted to jump out and fly. Imagine all the ancestral birds attempting to do this until one day one of them had wings structured properly and took off and flew.

There is nothing that is gradual about a transition from a land environment to an air environment, or a land to sea, or sea to land. Such a transition does not take millions of years, either you can fly or you can't; either you breathe air or have gills.

One of the most complex structures in the animal kingdom is the feather. The feather is lightweight, yet very strong and sturdy. It is made up of a network of fibrils that interconnect with one another in such a way providing the best economy of surface area for the weight. There is a main stem serving as the main support for the feather. It branches out into tributary stems, each of which branches again until they interconnect by using hooks and barbicels.

How would a reptile react to feathers on his back? He'd probably pull them out! Such structures in a transitional form would be detrimental to a reptile.

Some birds have unique structures that enable them to perform specialized functions in nature. [3,4] The woodpecker is such an example. He has special shock absorbers in his beak and skull providing protection from the severe migraine headaches that might otherwise result from his hazardous occupation.

Imagine all the poor pre-woodpeckers knocking themselves out, getting their beaks stuck in trees until this feature "evolved." Most birds have three toes in front and one behind. The woodpecker has two in front and two behind to enable him to grasp onto the side of a tree and peck away. He also has stiff tail feathers to support him and a long sticky tongue designed for fishing the insects he feeds on out of the holes he pecks in the trees. We have to conclude, God designed him for his special occupation.

Consider the water ouzel, a bird that not only flies in the air, but swims underwater with his wings!5 He also strolls on the bottom of the stream, overturning rocks with his beak and toes to feed on various water creatures. Air sacs provide buoyancy, enabling him to rise to the surface. He "blows his tanks" to submerge. Since he does not have webbed feet, he uses his wings as underwater oars.

He normally makes his nest behind a waterfall, through which he must pass to reach his front door. He makes his nest out of living moss, which is kept alive from the spray of the cascade.

How many eons of diving school did this bird endure before he mastered the delicate balance of the air and water environments? These unique air sacs will either work, or they won't. These functions would have to be perfected before our skinnydipping friend would ever discover the juicy morsels on the bottom of the stream.

Bird migration poses a problem for evolutionists. How does one account for birds like the Arctic tern that migrates from pole to pole, and returns to the same nesting spot each year? How does one account for this apparent design if we rule out creation by God?

The Phalarope is a bird who doesn't follow the normal pattern where the male gathers the food and the female sits on the eggs. Instead, it is the male who has to assume all the housewifely chores of nest building, incubation, and family feeding. Only one of two options is available: either juggling of the genders existed from the beginning or "Mother Nature" had to experiment with some bizarre transitional match making. [6]

Consider, though, the broader picture. What was the origin of sex and the roles each sex plays? Courtship behavior, sex roles and reproductive activity vary almost from species to species. This is an indicator of special creation. When did the two sexes diverge? According to evolution, a long slow process over millions of years created the sexes. But, reproduction is either asexual or sexual, there is no in-between. Even if some mutation created a male sexual creature, it would not reproduce unless the same mutation occurred in matching female as well!

The smallest bird in nature, and one of the most amazing is the hummingbird. [7] Weighing only 1/14 of an ounce, he has much in common with a helicopter, flying backward and sideways and hover in midair. Its rate of metabolism is so high that it must feed almost constantly. But, since there are no rods in the hummingbird's retina for night vision, its vital processes shut down to a state of hibernation at night. The nest of the hummingbird is not much bigger than a postage stamp, made out of thistledown and cobwebs. But, built into this pintsized bird is one of the most complex flight mechanisms known. Consider the following:

Hmmmmmmmmm!!

× In the feathers, the quill is considered stronger for its weight than any structure designed by man.

× Flexibility of the quill allows the primary feathers at the wing tip to bend upward with each downbeat of the wing. This produces the equivalent of pitch in a helicopter.

× The quill constantly changes shape to meet the requirements of air pressure and wing position.

× The leading vane of the feather is narrower than the trailing vane. This feature causes the wing to operate like a propeller to give both lift and propulsion.

× The wing is an efficient doublejointed foresail, the inner half sloping at a slight angle to give lift like the wing of an airplane, while the outer half acts like a propeller.

× There is a jet assisted takeoff mechanism. A tuft of feathers at the junction of the wing adds extra airfoil surface during landing and takeoff.

× Enlarged muscles to operate the wings; almost 3/4 the weight of the bird.

It is unreasonable to suggest that the hummingbird "developed" all of these features as a product of evolution gradually over millions of years. Time and chance cannot produce such design and order. Only God can!

The Anableps is a fish that spends his life on the surface of the water. Although he is a rather small fish, he poses a big problem for evolutionists. You see, his eyes are divided in half, the top designed for seeing in air out of the water, and the bottom for seeing below the surface of the water. [8] What were the transitional forms like? What kind of evolutionary "pressure" could have caused half an eye to gradually evolve to see out of the water?

The Archer FishThe Archer fish overcomes a problem in sea to air ballistics. He squirts water at his prey, which are bugs and flies. His mouth has a built in groove that channels the water like a squirt gun. But the biggest problem is his aim. He has to overcome the refractive difference from water to air in order to accurately hit his prey. [9] If you ever looked at a spoon in a glass of water, you would understand the problem. The refractive quality of water makes it appear to be broken in half. Again we marvel at God's design.

A Fish Goes Fishing!Consider the angler fish, who has an appendage dangling in front of his mouth that attracts other fish, and when the prey gets close enough, chomp!

The angler fish lives at great depths and has to handle a lot of water pressure. But the biggest problem for evolutionists is the fact that the male of the species doesn't eat! By an amazing process, he attaches himself to the female, and the blood streams of the two merge! Imagine the changes the male would have had to go through in order to evolve this gradually over a period of millions of years!

Like the angler fish, the decoy fish also lures its prey by means of a bait. One of its fins resembles a small fish standing out in contrast to the rest of the body, which blends in well with the environment. The prey, as it approaches the decoy fish, sees only the fishy looking fin and does not realize that it is part of a much bigger fish.

Flytrap ClaptrapImagine the fun that the Creator had in making the Venus Flytrap, the carnivorous plant. What a problem for an evolutionist this creates! On the surface of the trap are trigger hairs causing an action potential similar to a nerve response, closing the trap. [10] The plant then secretes digestive juices and the dying insect gives off weak solutions of sodium and ammonium ions, causing the trap to close more firmly.

In order for a Venus Flytrap to be functional, the plant must have in place a full-formed trap mechanism complete with trigger hairs, digestive glands, living bars, and action potential response before any insects could be trapped.

Also, the trap would have to have the capability of responding to the sodium ions secreted by the dying ants and flies so that the proper narrowing and digestion could occur.

Recent research regarding the flytraps has found that ants are a more common prey than flies. Scientists formerly believed that a scent was secreted by the trap, attracting the insects. This idea was ruled out after intensive observation, finding that the most frequently trapped insects were either poor fliers, clumsy fliers or non-flying forms that walk into the trap accidentally.

Another result of this study is the conclusion that the flytraps do quite well, grow, produce flowers, set seed, and fully propagate without ever eating a single insect. Why would such a structure "evolve"? Since there is no significant advantage to the trap forming by itself, I would rather believe that God created it as a curiosity.

Evolution Croaks!Fossils of supposedly ancient frogs show that frogs have always resembled frogs. This is one of the problems evolutionists face, that many modern animals are very much like their fossil counterparts, with no evolutionary change apparent over the imagined millions of years. Gerald H. Duffett [11] outlines a method of linking together vital functions of the frog as proof of creation. He provides detailed diagrams linking together these functions, showing that no single entity is fully functional alone and that other entities are required to make each entity fully functional. The following is a summary of his "linkological" evaluation of the frog.

1. Air

2. Tiny lungs

3. No trachea

4. No neck

5. Undifferentiated Vertebrae

6. No thorax

7. No abdomen

8. No diaphragm

9. No ribs

10. Pectoral girdle shields heart

and absorbs shock

11. No rib muscles

12. Urostyle

13. Hind legs for leaping

14. No larynx

15. Glottal epithelial flaps

16. Vocal pouches

17. Croak

18. Single Ventricle

19. Atria receive oxygenated blood

20. Cutaneous respiration

21. Amplexus

22. Fore limbs

23. Highly vascular skin

24. Mucus

25. Nuptial pads on males

26. Poikilothermy (cold-blooded)

27. Hibernation

28. Low ambient temperature

29. Webbed feet

30. Pond water

31. External fertilization

32. Gamete release

33. Identification of opposite sex

34. No external auditory meatus

35. Tympanic membrane on head surface

36. No air under water

37. No need for a secondary palate

38. Nostril closes

39. Vomerine teeth on roof of mouth

40. Eyeballs are retractable to aid swallowing

From this list of entities, Dr. Duffett compiles an entity link list connecting each of these features together into a matrix of interrelationships. The existence of such a network of links is clear evidence of a creator! Complex systems such as this do not come about by chance. From the above list of features, he compiles an exhaustive list of over 60 different links where each feature cannot exist without the other. Here are some examples:

From: To:

1

2

Air being less dense than water would not allow frog to dive for cover if lungs were not small.

1

20

Air diffuses through skin to enter blood capillaries.

2

3

Tiny lungs are not only too puny to have a reinforced windpipe leading to them, but they are subsidiary to skin.

2

19

Atria receive blood equally oxygenated because skin is as efficient as a respiratory surface as tiny lungs.

2

30

The much greater density of water compared with air prevents frog from carrying large lung full of from pond surface to pond bottom.

3

4

No point in having a neck if no trachea is present.

8

6

No diaphragm so no boundary in trunk to separate thorax from abdomen. Therefore, no thorax.

8

7

No diaphragm so no boundary in trunk to separate thorax from abdomen. Therefore, no abdomen.

Skin respiration is possible because that organ is richly supplied with blood vessels.

20

30

Oxygen dissolved in water can diffuse into skin both when frog is in the pond and when frog is on dry land provided that its skin remains moist.

23

19

Rich blood supply to skin ensures that oxygen diffuses into frog.

30

34

Frogs would become deaf if water entered their ear holes so they have no external auditory meatus on their heads.

37

40

No eye socket bones and no secondary palate allow eyeballs to be retracted by muscles and so help pushfood into esophagus.

Mr. Duffett's "linkological" approach illustrates the thorough systems analysis God used when He created the frog. It is important for us to use an approach like this when evaluating any creature in nature. Interdependence between entities can be documented through this linkological evaluation, showing that one system cannot exist without the other. This requires instant creation of these entities in order for functionality to exist. The probability of even two of these entities occurring by chance independently in the same organism at the same time is extremely remote. But the frog exhibits over 60 such interdependent entities!

Creation Wins By A NeckHave you ever wondered why the giraffe's brain doesn't explode when he stoops to get a drink of water? Or, why he doesn't pass out when he raises his head back up again? It's because God has specially created valves in his neck which close off the enormous flow of blood needed to raise it to the giraffe's great height. [12]

The giraffe has a powerful heart almost two feet long to make sure the blood supply gets to his brain. But if he did not have the special valves in his arteries which regulate his blood supply, his brains would explode under the pressure. Also, there is a special sponge underneath the giraffe's brain which absorbs the last pump of blood. Now, when he raises back up, that sponge squeezes that oxygenated blood into his brain, the valves open up, and he doesn't pass out.

Now, could this mechanism have evolved? No way! If the first giraffe had a long neck and two foot long heart, but no mechanism to regulate it, when he first stooped to get a drink of water, he would have blown his mind. Then, after he had blown his mind, he would have thought to himself, "I need to evolve valves in my arteries to regulate this!" No, he would have been dead! The giraffe's long neck couldn't have evolved; it needed to be completely functional in the first place.

*********

In Simple Terms..The Giraffe is an unusual animal that contains an interesting design mechanism. Did you know that a full grown giraffe's heart weighs over 24 pounds and pumps 16 gallons a minute? Because the giraffe's heart is much larger than his head, a series of special one-way, back-flow preventer valves are needed in the neck to regulate the flow of blood to the head, especially when the giraffe is bending down to get that much needed drink of water. Without these valves, the immense blood pressure coupled with gravity would make for one nasty headache and other such repercussions. Elastic blood vessels in the giraffe's head allow harboring of enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when bent in this position. The creationist points out that this intricate design mechanism is, you guessed it, a design! The evolutionist will have you believe that this system evolved with time, that eventually a giraffe mutated merrily along until the valves properly formed in the neck and the elastic blood vessels sufficiently formed in the head (along with other details left out here). [http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/giraffe1.htm]

*********

I'll Scratch Your Back; You Scratch Mine!Structured throughout nature is interdependence. In I Corinthians 12, we have the illustration of the body of Christ and its members functioning as an organism. Likewise, organisms in nature need each other to fulfill their roles.

A curiosity I studied in microbiology class was a microorganism called Mixotricha Paradoxa that lives in the gut of Australian termites. [14] When it was first discovered, it looked as if it was covered with a bunch of curly hairs. Looking at it closer, it was revealed that these were not hairs at all, but spirochetes, which were a totally different type of microorganism. On the Mixotricha, there were bumps or appendages where the spirochetes attached, and a bacillus which lodged on the other side of the bump. The spirochetes provided a means of locomotion for the entire colony of microorganisms. They are three totally different germs that decided to live together in a community. So, what you have is an interdependence between a large microorganism, a spirochete, a bacillus, an Australian termite, and even the trees the termite feed upon. I suppose if you are an evolutionist, you would have to believe that at one point in time they formed a committee and decided to all work together; the Mixotricha "developing" bumps where the spirochetes could bury their heads and behind which the bacillus could hide; all of whom "decided" to live in the gut of a termite.

Interdependence and ecology are problems for evolutionists. These principles demonstrate that there are delicate balances between all of the different species on the earth and that each is dependent upon the other. Which evolved first, a species or the food it feeds upon?

Reproduction provides an illustration of the problem that interdependence causes for evolutionists. The old "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" dilemma may cause a lot of laughter, but it still doesn't make the problem go away. For those who believe the Biblical account of creation, the answer is simple: it was the chicken originally created by God.

I like to look for telltale statements evolutionists make. For example, they say that "the aardvark is the only surviving example of an obscure mammalian genus." [13] Translation: they can't find any other animal enough like it to classify it, nor can they find any fossilized transitional forms. With a pig's snout, donkey ears, and sharp claws for burrowing, it is unique. The same holds true for the panda and the giant anteater. They have a combination of features that defy the traditional rules of classification.

Creationists, since they don't have to explain transitions from one species to another, have the simplest explanation for the origin of life. Those who reject the Biblical explanation are now having a more difficult time in the face of strongly negative evidence against evolution. Some scientists like Frances Crick and Fred Hoyle, unwilling to accept a Christian perspective, believe the concept that life was imported to earth by space aliens or on a meteorite. Others are adhering to the "hopeful monster" theory or the so-called "punctuated equilibrium" theory, the idea that massive changes took place all at once. In effect they believe that a reptile mutated, laid an egg and a bird hatched out. But it would have to happen twice in the same place to provide a mate for the new emerging species.

As a way to solidify the creationist position, we contemplate the scenario for the theory of evolution: examine the animal as it exists today in its environment, and visualize the supposed gradual "adaptation" from one environment to another. Analyze each feature of the animal and show how these features came to be. For the most part, evolutionists can only come up with speculation, and little fossil evidence to support it.

For review, let us examine the assumptions of evolution, which are all, by their nature, incapable of experimental verification. All of these involve a certain series of presumed events in the past. Even if it were possible to duplicate these experimentally, it does not mean that they occurred at all. Therefore, since evolution is beyond direct experimental verification, no honest man can state with certainty that the world is the product of an evolutionary process. The assumptions of evolution are listed as follows:

Non-living things gave rise to living things (spontaneous generation).

Spontaneous generation occurred only once, and did not repeat at any time.

Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated; all from the same source.

The protozoa gave rise to the metazoa.

The invertebrates are interrelated.

The invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

The vertebrates and fish gave rise to the amphibians, the amphibians to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals.

Evolutionists would ask us to take these assumptions and believe them in faith. "After all, how could all of these scientists who have spent dedicated years in research be so wrong?" Creationists have no quarrel with the data and the facts found by scientists. What we disagree with are the conclusions drawn from this data. Important facts conflicting with the theory of evolution have been glossed over, ignored, or thrown out as "experimental error". Scientific data is subject to interpretation. That is the function of theories. Theories must be revised to fit the facts, and if a theory is irreconcilable to the facts, discard it..

One of the most remarkable clues to the existence of an Intelligent Designer behind the astonishing complexity of the animal world is the eye of the trilobite. Trilobites are extinct invertebrates that swarmed the oceans in uncountable numbers during earth's early history. The creature's most notable feature was its phenomenally advanced, complex eyes.

According to evolutionary theory, animal eyes developed gradually over countless eons from light-sensitive cells to the eyes we have today. Trilobite eyes upset this speculation-based scenario. Under old-earth evolutionary assumptions, trilobites flourished 500-400 million years ago, close to the dawn of animal life on the planet. Given this assumed chronology, trilobites should have had fairly primitive eyes, since the creatures existed so early in earth's zoological history. However, trilobites' eyes are much more complex than what they ought to have been at that (alleged) stage in animal evolution. Furthermore - and even more upsetting to evolutionists - this astounding complexity appeared rather suddenly, rather than as the result of untold millennia of slow, gradual development that's unmistakably visible in the fossil record.

Richard Fortey, Merit Researcher at the Natural History Museum in London and visiting professor of paleobiology at Oxford University, stated: "We know that the first trilobites already had a well-developed visual system. Indeed, the large eyes found in the genus Fallotaspis, from Morocco, prove that sophisticated vision goes back at least 540 million years to the Cambrian period" (2000: 70). On another trilobite genus, Phacops, he commented: "Clearly a very sophisticated structure (even more so than the [usual] hexagonal-lensed trilobite eye), Phacops's crystal eye is a sports coupe in the age of the boneshaker" (Ibid. 71).

Prof. Fortey pointed out not only the sudden appearance of trilobites' complex eyes, but (perhaps unwittingly) the apparent design behind them, as if an intelligent agent had specially modeled them far in advance of what blind chance could have done. This is most noticeable in the problem of "spherical aberration," in which a trilobite's orb-shaped eyes would have caused vision distortion in the same way that, if you looked through a glass marble, the objects on the other side would appear to be grossly distorted - not to mention upside down. The trilobite eye is specifically, ingeniously designed to prevent this, as Fortey observes:

"Euan Clarkson [of the University of Edinburgh] and University of Chicago physicist Riccardo Levi-Setti discovered that something strange had happened to the calcite in the lower part of each Phacops lens: magnesium atoms were present in just the right quantity to correct the spherical aberration. For every bend to the left, there was a compensating bend to the right. This corrective layer made a bowl within the lens; the trilobite had thus manufactured what modern opticians term a doublet. The animals with these eyes may have seen more complete images of an object than their hexagonal-lensed fellows. All this [supposedly occurred] 400 million years ago" (Ibid. 72).

Of course, Prof. Fortey, being an old-earth evolutionist, would chalk it all up to evolution over countless millions of years. Despite this pre-established bias, he has nonetheless cast doubt on the unproven claim that the trilobite eye, with its astounding complexity and sudden appearance, came about over eons with the help of pure chance.

Reference:

Fortey, R. (2000). "Crystal Eyes." Natural History 109, no. 8: 68-72.

The Cleaner Fish…Cleaner fish are fishes that provide a service to other fish species by removing dead skin and ectoparasites. They “will swim into a shark's mouth and eat remnant food particles from the shark's teeth. The cleaner fish departs with a satisfied appetite, and the shark is happy because his teeth are cleaned in the process. The shark does not allow any other kinds of fish into its mouth without chomping down for a good lunch. Indeed, what other fish would dare attempt to swim into a shark's mouth! This type of relationship is called a symbiotic relationship. Creationists point out that these relationships clearly represent a design that could not have occurred by chance. Evolutionists have a very difficult time explaining how these types of relationships could evolve with time.

Nevertheless, an evolutionist will somehow have us believe that the cleaner fish eventually figured out he could go in the shark's mouth, and the shark eventually figured out that he should let him so as to maintain proper dental hygiene”. [http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/cleanerf.htm]